ArticleCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine2025
Accuracy of continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill patients.
Article in Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Hyperglycaemia requiring insulin infusions is common among critically ill patients. Attempts to tightly control glucose levels in the intensive care unit (ICU) have had mixed results partly due to hypoglycaemia. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has been widely adopted among ambulatory persons with diabetes but tested only on small numbers of patients in the ICU. This study was undertaken to address the accuracy of CGM in a group of critically ill patients. Setting and outcomes: This observational study included critically ill ICU patients admitted between 2019 and 2023 to a tertiary referral, university-affiliated hospital with a single 19-bed ICU. Patients requiring insulin to control hyperglycaemia had a sensor (Dexcom G4 or G6) attached. Accuracy was assessed as bias and mean absolute relative difference (MARD). Results are presented as median (interquartile range). Results: 103 patients were assessed. The majority (97%) were mechanically ventilated and on vasopressors (92%), and a quarter required renal replacement therapy. Men comprised 68% of the cohort; median age was 63 years, and body mass index was 29.8. Sensors were applied for 79.5 (48-160) hours. The median bias was -0.30 mmol/L (-0.55, 0.05), and MARD was 11.23 (8.10-15.03). No clinical hypoglycaemia occurred with sensors in place. Conclusion: In 103 patients with multiorgan failure on insulin for hyperglycaemia, CGM had acceptable bias and MARD and no hypoglycaemia. Given the accuracy seen in this trial, CGM could be considered in future trials of glucose management and used as a safety measure to reduce hypoglycaemic events. Cinical trials registration: The study was not registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.